Objectives The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation of porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs) fabricated using two techniques: heat‐pressing and computer‐aided design/computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). Methods A total of 60 IPS e.max PLVs were fabricated for seven patients and equally divided into two groups ( n = 30 per group). Group 1 consisted of veneers fabricated using the CAD/CAM technique (IPS e.max CAD), which were performed on the first and second premolars, while group 2 included veneers fabricated using the heat‐pressing technique (IPS e.max Press), which were performed on the lateral incisors and canines. Marginal adaptation was assessed using the cement replica technique prior to final cementation. Gingivo‐incisal and mesio‐distal sections were prepared, and marginal gap measurements were taken at six points per veneer (three in the cervical area and three in the contact area) using an OLYMPUS BX41 optical microscope at × 100 magnification. The statistical analysis was conducted using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, and group comparisons were analyzed using an independent samples t ‐test at a significance level of α = 0.05. Results The mean marginal gap for the CAD/CAM group was 174.72 µm, while that for the heat‐pressed group was 109.50 µm. This difference was statistically significant ( p < 0.05), with the CAD/CAM group exhibiting a greater marginal gap by 65.22 µm. Significance Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the fabrication technique significantly affects the marginal adaptation of PLVs. Heat‐pressed veneers demonstrated superior marginal adaptation compared to CAD/CAM‐fabricated veneers. However, all measured values remained within clinically acceptable limits.
Alhakim et al. (Thu,) studied this question.